[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2492-S2494]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 4 months after the horrific day in
Newtown where 20 children and 6 educators were senselessly murdered,
the Senate is posed to make further progress toward the goal of
reducing gun violence. It is a goal that all Americans, regardless of
political party or philosophy, should share. I don't know how any
parent, any grandparent, or any relative ever gets over the horrific
disaster of Newtown.
I thank our ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator
Grassley. He worked with us, and he favorably supported two of the
measures reported by the Judiciary Committee last month. Senator
Grassley helped make sure we had hearings that were substantive and
that we had a schedule so we could vote.
I commend Senator Collins, who has been my partner as we have moved
forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw
purchasers who obtain firearms legally but then provide them to
criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by
Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal,
Shaheen, and King.
Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more
effective tools. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted
for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, S. 54. It has
provisions that are included in the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act,
S. 649, which Majority Leader Reid placed on the Senate calendar just
before the last recess and on which he has now moved to proceed.
Straw purchasers get around the purpose of the background check
system. Straw purchasing of firearms is undertaken for just one reason:
to get a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from
having one.
We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired
through straw purchases. It was a straw purchaser who enabled the
brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, NY, this past
Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an
individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, PA, last
September. Is it any wonder that law enforcement across this country
says: Stop the straw purchasing. We are losing too many brave men and
women in law enforcement, to say nothing about all the others who have
been killed by drug and criminal cartels.
We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We have
included suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who
traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We
worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation to help combat a
serious problem. We are doing it in a way that protects the second
amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
It was an ATF whistleblower who testified in the last Congress that
the existing firearm laws are ``toothless.'' We can create better law
enforcement tools, and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal
Trafficking in Firearms Act. I urge all Senators to join with us and
close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels,
gangs, and other criminals throughout our country have exploited for
too long.
I wish to recognize the dedication and leadership of Senator Collins
of Maine to confront the issue of gun violence. She is not a member of
the Judiciary Committee, but she has been
[[Page S2493]]
committed to finding commonsense solutions to the problems of gun
violence. She has been dedicated in working with me to address the
concerns of other Senators. She and I share a deep respect for the
second amendment. We also agree our laws can be improved to give law
enforcement officials the tools they need, and she has been a steadfast
partner.
Our bill protects second amendment rights of lawful gun owners, but
at the same time it cracks down on criminals. It also cracks down on
the people who assist criminals. It doesn't create a national firearms
registry, it doesn't place additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners
or purchasers, but it does send a very clear message that those who buy
a gun on behalf of a criminal or member of a drug cartel or domestic
abuser will be held accountable. That is why law enforcement says: Pass
this bill. Give those of us in law enforcement who are on the
frontlines the tools we need.
Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecution under
existing gun laws. Some have suggested that instead of making sensible
changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, Federal law
enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. I
share some of that frustration, but it is not a valid excuse to do
nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of existing laws and efforts
to give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs are not
mutually exclusive. Those are efforts that complement each other.
A recent article in the Washington Times documented that gun
prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration and
suggests that having a Senate-confirmed Director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would significantly help law
enforcement.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[From the Washington Times, Apr. 4, 2013]
Drop-off in Gun Prosecutions Began Before Obama
(By David Sherfinski)
Gun rights groups have singled out President Obama for
failing to prosecute gun crimes, but the drop in cases filed
actually began a decade ago under the Bush administration.
Analysts said the decade long drop underscores the key
ingredient in gun prosecutions--a willingness to make them a
priority.
Prosecutions dipped at the beginning of the Clinton
administration but by 1998 had begun to rise again, tripling
between then and 2004, when the federal government filed more
than 11,000 cases. Since then, however, prosecutions have
steadily fallen again, dipping below 8,000 prosecutions a
year over the last three years.
Now, in the wake of last year's shooting spree that claimed
the lives of 20 schoolchildren and six adults at Sandy Hook
Elementary, all sides in the gun debate say they want to see
the laws on the books enforced. But the experience of the
last 10 years suggests that's easier said than done.
``Presidents and administrations--their priorities are
based partly in their ideology and their policy interests,
and to a certain extent by the issues of the day,'' said John
Hudak, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies gun
policy.
Looking at trends over the last quarter century, two
emerge: First, there were two annual peaks in gun
prosecutions, both of them under Republican presidents, in
1992 and 2004. Second, even though prosecutions have dropped
in recent years, the yearly number of gun cases is still much
higher now than in the pre-9/11 era, according to the
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse
University, which tracks the numbers.
What's tougher to explain is exactly why prosecutions had a
several-year spike at the end of the Clinton administration
and the beginning of President George W. Bush's tenure.
Mr. Hudak said the 1999 Columbine school shooting may have
spurred an increase in prosecutions, and so could the spate
of terrorist attacks in 1998, 2000 and, finally, the Sept. 11
attacks on New York and Washington.
And David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), said some of
the increase may have been due to a Justice Department
program that started in 2001 and targeted gun crimes in
localities across the country.
``That kind of commitment put a lot of numbers on the
board,'' said Mr. Chipman, who works with the gun-control
group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. ``I think it worked as
designed, which is to create a deterrent.''
The ATF, perhaps unfairly, began to receive criticism after
the increase that some of their efforts were duplicative, and
officials had to re-prioritize, Mr. Chipman said.
``You can't just prosecute 20,000 cases in one year--there
just isn't that infrastructure,'' he said.
``Any kind of looking at the numbers and drawing some sort
of conclusion that people are doing more or less--you've got
to get beyond that. Because you could be comparing apples and
oranges.''
Gun prosecutions require both cases to be developed by
investigators, and charges to be filed by prosecutors.
The TRAC study's numbers said prosecutors turned down 38
percent of referrals in 2002, while last year they declined
32 percent of referrals.
That puts much of the focus on ATF, the lead agency for
developing the cases.
Mr. Hudak said one factor in recent decline could be the
fact that ATF has been without a permanent director for six
years. In January, Mr. Obama nominated acting agency director
B. Todd Jones to become its permanent head, but Mr. Jones is
still awaiting Senate confirmation.
``The lack of leadership has its effects on priorities,''
Mr. Hudak said. ``And the ATF has such a diverse area of law
enforcement that they have to make choices about what they
prosecute.''
In the wake of last year's shooting rampage at Sandy Hook
Elementary School, gun-rights groups have argued the solution
is more prosecutions of gun crimes, not more restrictions on
law-abiding firearms owners.
``Prosecuting criminals who misuse firearms works,'' NRA
CEO Wayne LaPierre testified to Congress earlier this year.
``Unfortunately, we've seen a dramatic collapse in federal
gun prosecutions in recent years. That means violent felons,
gang members and the mentally ill who possess firearms are
not being prosecuted. And that's unacceptable.''
Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr. told the Senate
Judiciary Committee earlier this year that prosecuting gun
crimes is part of the answer and can serve as a deterrent,
but that preventing people who acquire guns to commit crimes
from getting them in the first place is crucial as well.
``We have limited resources and we have to try to figure
out where we want to use those limited resources, and one has
to look at why the gun was denied, and then make a
determination whether or not we should use those limited
resources to bring a prosecution against that person,'' Mr.
Holder said, referring to people who have been denied
firearms because of the FBI's National Instant Criminal Check
System (NICS).
Mr. Chipman acknowledged that with different
administrations, ideologies, result in different priorities,
which could affect the numbers, but he cautioned that drawing
conclusions about causes and effects can be risky.
``You can't possibly know what those numbers mean until you
layer the political environments at the time and the cases
being pursued,'' he said.
Both Mr. Hudak and Mr. Chipman discounted one potential
reason for the spike in prosecutions--the 1994 enactment of a
ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles. That ban ran from
1994 until its expiration in 2004, and those latter years
coincide with the recent peak, which started in 1998.
But the analysts said that was likely unrelated.
``The assault weapons ban was a shell of what the original
writers intended it to be,'' Mr. Hudak said. ``I can't
imagine there would be a four-year lag in the effect of the
assault weapons ban on prosecutions.''
Mr. LEAHY. As I said in January, America is looking to us for
solutions, for action, not sloganeering, demagoguery, or partisanship.
That is why it is disappointing to hear that some Senators pledge to
prevent Senate consideration of these proposals by a filibuster. It is
especially disappointing that some who claim to support regular order
and a transparent legislative process accord that process no deference.
Mr. President, there are only 100 of us who have the privilege to
serve at any given time in this wonderful body. We represent 325
million Americans. How can we talk to those Americans and say: We won't
even vote. We won't even let it come to a vote. We don't have the guts
to stand up and vote yes or no.
Tell that to the families in Newtown, CT. Tell that to the families
in Aurora, CO. Tell that to the people of the United States, that the
Senate is not willing to stand up and vote either yes or no; they want
to vote maybe.
I am a gun owner. I live in a State with a lot of gun owners. I have
the courage to stand here and vote. I want to vote. Some will agree
with my votes, some will disagree, but this Senator feels it is part of
his sworn duty to vote--vote yes, vote no, but vote.
In the Judiciary Committee, we held three public hearings and four
public markups on this legislation. We gave them full and fair
consideration. We debated and considered amendments--
[[Page S2494]]
Democratic and Republican amendments. The distinguished Presiding
Officer is a member of that committee. He knows the debate we had and
the votes we held. What a filibuster would do now is obstruct the open
process of the Senate consideration of gun violence prevention
legislation, and it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It demeans the
Senate, and it turns our backs on 325 million Americans who expect
better.
I have worked with Senator Collins and others to provide a real-world
and commonsense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and straw
purchasing. That is the course I urge the Senate to take. Let's go
forward and vote. Vote yes, vote no, but vote. Have the courage to
vote. Don't turn our backs on the families who have suffered so much.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, four months after that horrific day in
Newtown, where 20 children and 6 educators were senselessly murdered,
the Senate is poised to make further progress toward the goal of
reducing gun violence. It is a goal that all Americans, regardless of
political party, should share.
I want to thank our ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Grassley, for working with us and supporting two of the
measures favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee last month. I
commend Senator Collins, who has been my partner, as we have moved
forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw
purchasers who obtain firearms to provide them to criminals and gangs.
We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by Senators Durbin,
Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Shaheen, and King.
Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more
effective tools. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted
for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, S. 54, and its
provisions are included in the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, S.
649, that Majority Leader Reid placed on the Senate calendar just
before the last recess and on which he has now moved to proceed.
Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check
system. Straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason--to get
a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having
one. We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired
through straw purchases. It was a straw purchaser who enabled the
brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, NY this past
Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an
individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, PA, last
September.
We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also
include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who
traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We
worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help
combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the Second
Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
It was an ATF whistleblower who testified last Congress that the
existing firearms laws are ``toothless''. We can create better law
enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal
Trafficking in Firearms Act. I urge all Senators to join with us to
close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels,
gangs, and other criminals have exploited for too long.
I especially want to recognize the dedication and leadership of
Senator Collins to confront the issue of gun violence. Although not a
member of the Judiciary Committee, she has been committed to finding
commonsense solutions to the problem of gun violence. Senator Collins
has been dedicated in working with me to address the concerns of other
Senators. She and I share a deep respect for the Second Amendment, but
we also agree that our laws can be improved to give law enforcement
officials the tools they need to help curtail gun violence. She has
been a steadfast partner.
Our bill protects Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners, while
cracking down on criminals and those who would assist them. The bill
does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any
additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. It sends a
clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal, a
member of a drug cartel, or a domestic abuser will be held accountable.
That is why our bill is strongly supported by law enforcement.
Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecutions under
existing gun laws. And some have suggested that instead of making
sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence,
Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing
laws. I share some of that frustration, but I do not agree it is a
valid excuse for us to do nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of
existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement officials better
tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive, those efforts
complement each other.
A recent article in The Washington Times documented that gun
prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration, and
suggests that having a Senate-confirmed director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives would significantly help law
enforcement.
As I said in January, Americans are looking to us for solutions and
for action, not sloganeering, demagoguery, or partisanship. That is why
it is particularly disappointing to hear that some Senators are
pledging to prevent Senate consideration of these legislative proposals
by filibustering. It is especially disappointing that some who claim to
support regular order and a transparent legislative process accord that
process no deference. The Judiciary Committee held three public
hearings and four public markups on this legislation. It gave them full
and fair consideration. We debated and considered amendments. What a
filibuster would do now is obstruct the open process of Senate
consideration of gun violence prevention legislation. That is wrong.
I have worked with Senator Collins and others to provide a real
world, common sense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and
straw purchasing. That is the course I urge the Senate to take. We need
to proceed to the bill and do what is best for the American people.
____________________